Evidence of meeting #46 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
We are ready to resume.
Everyone has heard the terms of the amendment. We'll resume debate.
Is there any debate on the amendment?
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I'll just say that I'm fine with adding on the other contracts to ensure that they're all in proper order, but we do know that the McKinsey contracts are of particular interest. They have grown exponentially during the last several years under this government. We know that there is a personal relationship between the Prime Minister and Dominic Barton, along with a personal relationship with the Minister of Finance, Chrystia Freeland. We've already found out, in just the last week, that the number is over $100 million in contracts. It's $116 million, and I expect that this number will continue to grow.
Again, it speaks to the fact that Liberal insiders continue to profit from this government while Canadians continue to hurt with rising inflation and high interest rates because of the mismanagement of the current administration.
Finally, I believe these dollars would be better invested in the Canadian Armed Forces than given to a consulting company based in New York.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bryan May Liberal Cambridge, ON
I'll actually defer to Lindsay, because my question is around the purpose of expanding this. I'm curious as to why we're wanting to add these other contracts to this particular motion, given the work that's been done already with OGGO.
I will defer to Lindsay.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Thank you.
The companies that I've listed are actually from a piece of information that was given to OGGO, stating that in fact....
I understand that McKinsey & Company is of course in the spotlight at this moment. However, it is one of the smallest in terms of federal government contracts and expenditures. I have listed them in the order of the largeness or the size of those contracts, and at the end is McKinsey & Company. That's why I think it's important, as we look at the validation of those contracts and what's been happening, that we start to take a look at all of them, if that's truly in question.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm going to move an amendment here as well on the main motion, if Ms. Mathyssen's amendment is approved.
I would make the motion to amend—
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Yes. I think we have to deal with the amendment at hand before—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm making an amendment to this amendment. As well, I'm letting you know that I'll make the same—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON
I'm going to move that the contracts, if this amendment is approved, be included from March 2006. I'd really be interested to see.... If we want a wholesome picture of contracts in the Canadian government, then I think it's important that we go back to March 2006 and we just see whose buddies really are...and who's cozying up to who.
Mr. Chair, I really hope I have support for a wholesome look at March 2006 for this information.
I'd also like to ask for a recorded vote.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. That subamendment is properly before us. That's the focus of the debate at this point.
Is there any comment on the motion by Ms. O'Connell?
Yes, James.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I think most of this is on the public record. We know that during the Conservative time, the contracting that was happening under the Chrétien and Paul Martin governments fell dramatically under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. That's public information. You can easily look at the numbers.
We also know that the McKinsey contract that was in place actually went to nil by the time we hit 2014. I'd also say that we know that, under this current government, spending has doubled on consulting contracts.
I have nothing to hide here. Most of this is public information. I hope it's not just a make-work project for those who have to come forward with all the records.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is there any other wish to debate? Does anybody want to go back to Laurier or Macdonald...?
4:10 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Is the subamendment before us understood by everyone?
Those in favour of the subamendment indicate by a show of hands—
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Clerk.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
We have an outbreak of love.
The amendment as amended is now up for debate. Is there any debate on the amendment as amended?
We will vote on the amendment as amended.
(Amendment as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
It passes unanimously. The motion is now amended. That is where we're at.
Go ahead, Ms. Normandin.
January 31st, 2023 / 4:10 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Mr. Chair, I'd like to move a motion to adjourn debate on the motion.
I think it's important that we debate it at some point, but it's also being debated more broadly at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Everything we're asking for is already included in the motion that is currently being discussed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. I think it's appropriate to give that committee the time to do its work. Then we could come back to the motion we have before us.
If the work done by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates isn't making sufficient progress or if we have additional questions, we can work on it, but let's wait until we know more about the work that committee is doing. This will prevent us from working in a compartmentalized fashion and going off in all directions.
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is already doing exceptional and extensive work. I'd like to see what comes out of that before we debate this motion. It's a motion I want to support, but its content may not be complete yet. We may have information from another committee. Once we have that information, we can review the motion before us and add to it.